Appeal 6000018

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council is in the process of reviewing its Local Plan. Although not referred to in its decision, copies of its policies are before me and they attract some weight as the review is at an advanced stage.

On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework. Its content relative to the main issues of the appeal is largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary for me to give the main parties opportunity to comment on this matter.

The canopy extension has already been erected and I shall consider the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: a) Whether the proposal harms the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings, and b) Its effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and area.

The canopy is a thin profile, flat roofed structure that cantilevers out from the rear of the dwelling for its full width by 2.9 metres. This is in addition to an existing 5 metre deep rear extension. Although there is no dispute that the existing part single part two storey extension is unlawful, the combined impact of the previous extensions and the canopy extend the dwelling significantly beyond the main rear elevations of the neighbouring dwellings to either side.

The appeal dwelling occupies almost the entire width of its plot. Its north side elevation aligns with the plot boundary. As a result, the existing two storey part of the dwelling already has a considerable impact on daylight and outlook enjoyed by the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling, no. [address]. This is particularly the case as the appeal dwelling is to the south, which means that its impact on daylight and direct sunlight would already be felt for much of the day.

The canopy increases this impact. It is possible to look out underneath it because it has no vertical element. However, it decreases the level of daylight and direct sunlight that reaches the garden of this neighbour, and further restricts outlook when looking up from the level of the adjacent garden. As a result, the occupiers of no. 249 are likely to experience an increased sense of feeling hemmed in by the scale of the appeal dwelling because of this additional element.

The impact on no. [address] is less because this dwelling is to the south and does not therefore experience the same issue with shade. Furthermore, a conservatory extension brings this dwelling out further to the rear relative to the appeal dwelling, with a patio area to the south that is unaffected by the canopy.

In summary, the proposal has a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of no. [address], contrary to Policy CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 (CS), Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies 2012 (DMP), and emerging Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2024 (LP) insofar as they seek to ensure that development proposals are well designed and allow for adequate outlook and daylight to adjoining occupiers. It would also not accord with Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance 2016 (SPD) insofar as it seeks to ensure that development does not reduce the amenity value of neighbouring occupiers or result in a harmful impact.

The appeal dwelling stands in an area of mid-20th century housing. Dwellings are mostly detached, with large gardens, and many have been extended significantly or redeveloped.

The canopy at the rear of the dwelling is an inelegant structure. However, owing to the close spacing of the dwellings, the substantial garden outbuildings and dense vegetation in the adjacent woodland, its visual impact is contained and only experienced from a small number of private rear gardens. Furthermore, it utilises materials that match the host dwelling and has a form and scale that reads as an integral part of the design. As a result, it does not appear out of place. It has no impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling or of the wider area when viewed from [address].

The Council suggests that it goes beyond the guidance in the SPD owing to its scale and the overall rearward depth of extension when combined with the existing rear extension. It would appear to be the case that this guidance is already exceeded by the existing extensions, and in any case, the canopy is of an unusual form that is not accounted for in the SPD. I have found that it has the appearance of part of the dwelling. It has a clear additive and subservient form and therefore I am not satisfied that it conflicts with the overriding aims of the SPD.

In summary, the development accords with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the CS, Policy DM01 of the DMP and emerging Policies GSS01 and CDH01 of the LP insofar as they seek to secure good standards of design that respects local context and distinctive local character.

[name] have found that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area, this is a neutral matter that has no bearing on the first main issue. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.